Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Right & Wrong
Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by Singalphile » Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:47 pm

This is about Matthew 5:27-28.
Jesus - Matthew 5:27-28 (ESB) - wrote: 27 You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
1. As ya'll know, the broader, more important context is about going further and deeper than mere outward adherence to the letter of the law.
2. In verses 27-28, he uses the sin of adultery to again make that point. (Intentionally desiring a sin is as much a sin as actually carrying it out.)
3. Jesus is probably not intending here to redefine the word "adultery".
4. Insofar as these verses give us instruction about sexual behavior, it can really only responsibly be used to prohibit adultery and the desire to commit adultery, which is of course an important prohibition throughout both testaments.
5. It is obviously not necessarily wrong to set one's heart upon (long for, desire, covet) a man or woman. These verses only really deal with the sort of intentional desire that if actually carried out would result in an adulterous affair.

Nothing new or profound, I know, but I think that many teachers don't want to get into this lest they be accused of encouraging or excusing some type of immorality, and I find that interesting. So, the passage is often misapplied, I think, though with good intentions, no doubt. What do you think?
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

dizerner

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:31 pm

How is it misapplied. I couldn't figure that out from your 5 points.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by Paidion » Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:29 pm

How would an ummarried man looking with desire at an unmarried woman be "adultery"?
I think it is important to remember that the Greek word "γυνη" means either "woman" or "wife".
If the word is translated as "wife" in this context, then the answer to my question is clear.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by Singalphile » Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:28 pm

Paidion partly explained my point, I think.

These verses are often used as a general teaching against "lust" (a somewhat arbitrary translation of the Greek word, imo) or pornography. In fact, these verses don't necessarily have anything to do with those things, so these verses probably aren't relevant, for example, to a roomful of typical teenagers (i.e., single people), except of course for the broader point that Jesus is making throughout Matthew 5. That is where I think it's probably often misapplied. But it's easier to ignore or gloss over any exegesis of those verses.

It's like further along in Matt 5, it says in the KJV, "But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne." A preacher might use that verse to preach against using vulgarity ("swearing"). Well, that's not really what the verse is about, but I'm against vulgarity too, so it's easier to just let it slide. Know what I mean?
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

dizerner

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:13 pm

I don't know, man. I think anyone reading those two passages feels the spirit of them. What kind of guy says "But it only meant this certain kind of unlawful lust and not this other kind," or "but this unique kind of swearing is okay." We know from plenty places those other things are not good either.

You know there's an old teaching I remember about law and grace. Living by law makes you try to get as "close" to not breaking the rules as possible. Living by grace, you try to get as far away from breaking the rules as possible.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by Singalphile » Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:36 pm

Hi, dizerner.

Your response is an example of what I meant when I wrote that "it's easier to ignore or gloss over any exegesis" and that "many teachers don't want to get into this lest the by accused of encouraging or excusing some type of immorality."

First, you dismiss any more in-depth analysis of the verses (Matt 5:27-28) and say that we can or should feel the spirit of them, and then you point out that we know such-and-such from plenty of other places. I think that you probably wouldn't find that very convincing if we were discussing other theological "ism"s.

Then you imply that an attempt is being made to to get as close to breaking the rules as possible. You suspect bad motives, it seems.

(I realize that you may have been short on time or whatever.)

I can see why no Church leader would want to even "go there", and that is what I find interesting. (I have no nontraditional, unorthodox views about human/Christian sexuality. To be honest, I sometimes think that my lack of any serious struggle with sexual sin is what makes me more willing to talk about such things.)

I think that Paidion is correct that the same Greek word is used for "wife" and "woman". But from what I remember, the word can and does sometimes just refer to females of any marital status. It seems to me that "woman"/"women" ought to be the consistent translation.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by morbo3000 » Sun Jan 24, 2016 8:26 pm

I see the distinction you are making. The verse is talking about adultery, which involves lust after a married woman. While lusting after unmarried women may not be a great idea, it's not the explicit point of this verse.

I have made a similar point in previous threads about the word fornication. It's used today to say it's a sin to have sex before marriage. Whether that's a good idea or not, it's not what those texts mean. We impose back on the text our sexual ethics. When Paul says to abstain from sexual immorality, we read back our definition of sexual immorality onto the text and then say "See? Paul says not to be sexual immoral, and we believe sex before marriage is sexually immoral, so abstain from pre-marital sex. Because that's what Paul said."

21st century sexual ethics is a huge issue to wrestle with. The gap between now and the first century is wider than it is made out to because of how different the ancients believed about women. What was ok for a man was definitely not ok for a woman. Evidence for that is the emphasis on virginity. And the worse natures of the past still have vestiges today. The misogyny present on the thread on "virgins" is atrocious. Even to the point of asking a direct sexual question of a woman on the board, that has not been asked of the men. And we would do well to remember it was only less than 100 years ago that women were allowed to vote. So it's a lot more difficult to draw a straight line from then to now than people make it out to be.

Regarding this verse, the sermon on the mount is a collection of sayings organized around themes. The theme throughout this part of the sermon is a contrast between law and ethics. Committing adultery was breaking the law. In a legal sense. So, we might suppose we are being good people when we don't break the law. Ethics is something different. Ethics asks why is one thing right, and another wrong. Jesus seems to be making the point that there is a deeper ethical question regarding sex than making sure you don't break a law. It is a call to being morally responsible.. a grown-up so to speak.

The funny thing about this, I believe, is that the church through the centuries took this call to moral responsibility and turned it into another law. Which completely misses Jesus' point.

And also to your point, publicly examining these texts to see what they do (and don't) say, and how to apply them, makes one look like they are trying to excuse sexual immorality (whatever that is.) Which I am not.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by Homer » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:14 pm

I have much sympathy for what morbo3000 just wrote. Jesus came to a people who had the Law of Moses. Adultery meant that a man had sex with the wife of another man. That's it. If a married man had sex with an unmarried prostitute that was not adultery. In the SOM, in my opinion, Jesus was not teaching law. But He was teaching us what kind of person we must be. An ethical person does not go about having sex with people he is not married to. He/she should not be fantasizing about having improper sexual relations.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by Paidion » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:42 pm

Morbo wrote:I see the distinction you are making. The verse is talking about adultery, which involves lust after a married woman. While lusting after unmarried women may not be a great idea, it's not the explicit point of this verse.
On the other hand, one might ask whether a married man having desires in his heart for an unmarried woman would be committing adultery against his wife.

I realize this would not apply to the ancient Israelites, since in that social order, a man could not commit adultery against his wife—only against another man if he swived the other man's wife. But Jesus taught that a man could commit adultery against his wife.
And he said to them, Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Matthew 5:27-28 - Adultery

Post by morbo3000 » Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:58 pm

Paidion wrote:I realize this would not apply to the ancient Israelites, since in that social order, a man could not commit adultery against his wife—only against another man if he swived the other man's wife. But Jesus taught that a man could commit adultery against his wife.
And he said to them, Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)
Agreed. Which seems a radical upending of the social order. This is not simply a moral accusation, or a crime against holiness. Jesus is dignifying the wife as being just as victimized by adultery as a husband would be. This is consistent with his bringing value to the poor, the cripple, the leper, the tax collector. The least of these.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”